Skip to main content

Legitimacy, Institutions, and Practical Responsibility

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Business Legitimacy
  • 130 Accesses

Abstract

The rationality behind corporate responsibility must evolve for business to gain and retain legitimacy and to strengthen the institutional framework of global governance. Responsibility in practice as a means toward legitimacy is becoming more important for corporate actors in line with the growth of their influence in global governance and the external expectations connected to that. At the same time that the dynamics of governance and the role of business changes, the quality of governance issues has changed. With the emergence of universal and existential issues in a context of complexity and connectedness, business legitimacy faces growing scrutiny. The potential for a universal scope of responsibility for businesses due to their global influence in the context of various governance issues and with that a wide range of addressees, means that corporate actors need to meet the growing challenges of their legitimacy. This chapter suggests that a general structure for an approach that utilizes responsibility, as a means toward sustainable legitimacy, should incorporate at a minimum the three phases of critical reflection, prioritization, and collaboration. It is important to emphasize that a responsibility in practice needs to incorporate both the social and natural environment, as defined by Jonas. Additionally, it must build on prospective evaluation of expected consequences of business operations, despite apparent complexity. This chapter points toward teleological ethical considerations as opposed to established moral and legal norms to guide the approach toward consequence-based responsibility in practice and thereby sustainable business legitimacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ainley K (2017) Virtue ethics. In: Oxford research encyclopedia of international studies. Oxford University Press and the International Studies Association, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf G (2017) Der Begriff der Verantwortung in der Gegenwart: 20.-21. Jahrhundert. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 149–167

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB (2001) Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J Manag 27:643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu K, Palazzo G (2008) Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Acad Manag Rev 33:122–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayertz K, Beck B (2017) Der Begriff der Verantwortung in der Moderne: 19.-20. Jahrhundert. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 133–147

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beck V (2015) Verantwortung oder Pflicht? Zur Frage der Aktualität und Unterscheidbarkeit zweier philosophischer Grundbegriffe. Zeitschrift für Prakt Philos 2:165–202. https://doi.org/10.22613/zfpp/2.2.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benatar S, Daar A, Singer P (2003) Global health ethics: the rationale for mutual caring. Int Aff 79:107–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonhoeffer D (1966) Ethik, 7th edn. Christian Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown DL, Vetterlein A, Roemer-Mahler A (2010) Theorizing transnational corporations as social actors: an analysis of corporate motivations. Bus Polit 12:1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhmann K (2010) Public–private development of CSR on the international stage: reflexivity and legitimacy. In: Rendtorff JD (ed) Power and principle in the market place on ethics and economics, 1st edn. Routledge, London, pp 179–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Bukovansky M, Clark I, Eckersley R et al (2012) Special responsibilities: global problems and American power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler AC (1999) Locating “authority” in the global political economy. Int Stud Q 43:59–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erskine T (2008) Locating responsibility: the problem of moral agency in international relations. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-41. Accessed 19 Feb 2018

  • Falkner R (2008) Business power and business conflict: a neo-pluralist perspective. In: Falkner R (ed) Business power and conflict in international environmental politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 16–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Q 4:409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French PA (1979) The corporation as a moral person. Am Philos Q 16:207–215

    Google Scholar 

  • French PA (1996) Integrity, intentions, and corporations. Am Bus Law J 34:141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt V (2017) Individuelle Verantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 431–451

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haufler V (2001) A public role for the private sector. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidbrink L (2016) Companies as political actors: a positioning between ordo-responsibility and systems responsibility. In: Luetke C, Mukerji N (eds) Order ethics: an ethical framework for the social market economy. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 251–278

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heidbrink L (2017) Definitionen und Voraussetzungen der Verantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch der Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 3–33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) (2017) Handbuch Verantwortung, 1st edn. Springer, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Held V (1970) Can a random collection of individuals be morally responsible? J Philos 67:471–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D, Cashore B, Visseren-Hamakers I, DeJong W et al (2017) Towards durable multistakeholder-generated solutions: the pilot application of a problem-oriented policy learning protocol to legality verification and community rights in Peru. Int For Rev 19:278–293. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817821865018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICRC (2018) Nuclear weapons. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/nuclear-weapons. Accessed 5 Nov 2019

  • Isaacs T (2014) Collective responsibility and collective obligation. Midwest Stud Philos 38:40–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaspers K (1957) Die Atombombe und die Zukuft des Menschen. Politisches Bewusstsein in unserer Zeit, 1st edn. Piper Verlag, Muenchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas H (2011) Die Sakralität der Person – Eine neue Genealogie der Menschenrechte. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas H (2017) Das Prinzip Verantwortung, 6th edn. Suhrkamp, Taschenbuch Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivleniece I, Quelin BV (2012) Creating and capturing value in public–private ties: a private actor’s perspective. Acad Manag Rev 37:272–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mecklin J (2019) A new abnormal: It is still 2 minutes to midnight 2019 Doomsday Clock Statement Science and Security Board Statement from the President and CEO. In: Bull. At. Sci. https://media.thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-Clock-Statement-Press-Print-Version.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2019

  • Miller D (1993) In defence of nationality. J Appl Philos 10:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1993.tb00058.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller S (2006) Collective moral responsibility: an individualist account. Midwest Stud Philos 30:176–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D (2007) Two concepts of responsibility. In: National responsibility and global justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–110

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon S (2013) Respecting the right to access to medicines: implications of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights for the pharmaceutical industry. Health Hum Rights 15:32–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Moschella M, Tsingou E (2013) Regulating finance after the crisis: unveiling the different dynamics of the regulatory process. Regul Gov 7:407–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ougaard M, Leander A (2012) Business and Global Governance (Paperback) – Routledge, 1st edn. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pava ML, Krausz J (1997) Criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 16:337–347. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017920217290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pies I, Koslowski P (2011) Corporate citizenship and new governance, 1st edn. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pogge T (2008) Access to medicines. Public Health Ethics 1:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev 89:62–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff JD (2009) Responsibility, ethics, and legitimacy of corporations, 1st edn. ebrary, Inc, Frederiksberg/Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff JD (2014) Risk management, banality of evil and moral blindness in organizations and corporations. Bus Ethics Risk Manag 43:45–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7441-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Scherer AG (2015) Corporate governance in a risk society. J Bus Ethics 126:309–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1943-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi SP (2002) Corporate codes of conduct and the success of globalization. Ethics Int Aff 16:89–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2002.tb00377.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steigleder K (2017) Deontologische Theorien der Verantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 171–188

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman MC (1995) Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20:571–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomaschek N, Streinzer A (2014) Verantwortung – Ueber das Handeln in einer komplexen Welt, 1st edn. Waxmann Verlag GmBH, Muenster/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetterlein A (2018) Responsibility is more than accountability: from regulatory towards negotiated governance. Contemp Polit 24:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2018.1452106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelms G (2017) Systemverantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 501–524

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Young IM (2011) Responsibility for justice. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Delventhal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Delventhal, J. (2019). Legitimacy, Institutions, and Practical Responsibility. In: Rendtorff, J. (eds) Handbook of Business Legitimacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_67-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_67-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics